About GMs philosophies...

Every year, there’s the temptation of signing the “big name” free agent. Every year, somebody pays an exorbitant amount of cash for one player. Does the player help a team win a championship? The short answer? No.

Every year, Daniel Snyder’s private plane is fueled up as he prepares to outbid Jerry Jones. Last year it was Albert Haynesworth, who played on a 4-win Redskins team this year. T.J. Houshmandzadeh was prematurely polishing his Lombardi Trophy when he signed with the Seahawks. Needless to say, the Seahawks won a whopping 5 games this year.

Remember how much money the 49ers paid Nate Clements a few years back?

So, does signing a big free agent pay off? Is the answer not signing the free agent? Should a team solely rely on the draft? By analyzing the people who get paid to make these big decisions, we, in hindsight, can measure their effectiveness (or lack thereof).

Let’s look at the Packers and Vikings under the reign of their current coaches and general managers: Mike McCarthy/Ted Thompson and Brad Childress/Rick Spielman, respectively.

The Packers’ approach has been to build a foundation using its draft choices and to sprinkle in a couple of free agents year by year. The following is a list of draft choices and free agents who have played significant roles in the past four years:

In contrast, the Vikings’ approach has been to build its team through the combination of the draft, free agency, and trades. The Purple and Gold have drafted a number of starters and regular contributors as well, such as:

Even though the methods of acquiring players have been different, the results have been remarkably similar. Over four seasons, McCarthy’s overall record is 38-26 with a 1-2 playoff record. Childress is 36-28 with a 1-2 playoff record. Both coaches have lost the NFC championship game and both have lost in the wild card round.

Two different approaches, and two very similar overall records. Most importantly, neither coach has been to the Super Bowl. Whose approach has been better? Only time will tell.

But, have no fear, football fans, the offseason is almost over. Free Agency begins on March 5 and then it’s a mere 7 weeks until the draft. And there is that “big” free agent, Julius Peppers. Will he help anchor a championship defense? If history is any indicator, the answer is no. I say he signs with a team that ends up winning, let’s say, 6 games next season.

Click to expand...

Like I said in the comment section, I don't think there's one right philosophy. We won in 96 with a big FA. The Saints used a lot of FAs. The Giants and Steelers didn't have many FAs when they won...

I think it's more about being good in your philosophy.

Do the homework, have great scouts, hit in a high rate if you're going to build through the draft. It's cheaper and MUCH easier to build team chemistry that way, which is a vital component in sucess.

Analyse the mental aspect of the FA, see if he has any legal problems and such, and if he does, if they're youth mistakes (Vernon Davis), or character flaws (Pacman Jones). See if the FA has the will to win, or just to earn money. See if his personality will connect with your current players, if he's going to disrupt the locker room chemistry. And make sure he fits into your system, if you're going to bring in FAs to complement your team.

It is not about where the player comes from, but who evaluates the talent the best wins. TT saved his job this past year with one hell of a draft, if he had a so so draft the Pack would be far behind vikings at this point and TT's job security along with it.

One thing that does not matter to the average fan, but is key to the organization as a whole, is the financial side. This is where I believe TT shines the best, the return on investment, where the vikings have issues being profitable in their current situation. When they signed BF, they had to do a tricky payment schedule due to lack of funds, although I believe their investment in BF has paid off. Packers as an organization is on solid ground financially.

IMO TT got lucky this year, his neglect of the O-line almost cost him and if players like Lang and Jones did not step up the Pack could have easily finished 7-9.

The hard thing like this is to judge for only a 4 year period, some of Shermans mistakes cost the Packers years after he left.

As a GM I feel TT gets a C+ in making the switch to the 3-4 defense as far as his personnel decisions. Two of the biggest players as far as contracts and value going into this switch was Kampman and Hawk. Both of these players trade value was at their highest before the 2009 season. Now we are severely over paying for Hawk with no long term outlook and Kampman walks free. These players would have net a couple of high round draft pics, selecting players better suited to the 3-4 defense.

TT's failure to make the right call on these players will cost the Packers an additional year to make a true run at the super bowl with this switch to the 3-4. I often wonder if we stayed with our old defense how much further along we would be at this point. We are talking about needing another pass rusher on the defense, yet Kampman may be walking free to a divisional rival.

This kind of goes back to point of the this thread, its not so much your philosophy, but the players you get to play. In a way I think switching to 3-4 defense was a mistake. We are not as good, not even close, to what our stats and rankings say. The defense failed against elite teams in this league, the rest of our easy schedule and the right games played at home gave the Pack a deceiving 11-5 record. I give more credit to the players motivation and pride to win, than anything TT or switching of philosophies did. Thus I believe sticking with our old defense woud have net the same if not better results.

I think it's a matter of looking at FA, the draft and trades as tools at your disposal. You don't get married to any one approach but you look for opportunities.

I do agree with the initial premise of the article, the Redskins approach of giving huge pay days to big names just does not seem to work. We all know that they did not just start that last year, it's been going on for a while now.

I also think that when it comes to any player, but especially FA's, character and team chemistry has to be a top concern. NO TO for me please, I don't care how good he is.

It is not about where the player comes from, but who evaluates the talent the best wins. TT saved his job this past year with one hell of a draft, if he had a so so draft the Pack would be far behind vikings at this point and TT's job security along with it.

One thing that does not matter to the average fan, but is key to the organization as a whole, is the financial side. This is where I believe TT shines the best, the return on investment, where the vikings have issues being profitable in their current situation. When they signed BF, they had to do a tricky payment schedule due to lack of funds, although I believe their investment in BF has paid off. Packers as an organization is on solid ground financially.

IMO TT got lucky this year, his neglect of the O-line almost cost him and if players like Lang and Jones did not step up the Pack could have easily finished 7-9.

The hard thing like this is to judge for only a 4 year period, some of Shermans mistakes cost the Packers years after he left.

As a GM I feel TT gets a C+ in making the switch to the 3-4 defense as far as his personnel decisions. Two of the biggest players as far as contracts and value going into this switch was Kampman and Hawk. Both of these players trade value was at their highest before the 2009 season. Now we are severely over paying for Hawk with no long term outlook and Kampman walks free. These players would have net a couple of high round draft pics, selecting players better suited to the 3-4 defense.

TT's failure to make the right call on these players will cost the Packers an additional year to make a true run at the super bowl with this switch to the 3-4. I often wonder if we stayed with our old defense how much further along we would be at this point. We are talking about needing another pass rusher on the defense, yet Kampman may be walking free to a divisional rival.

This kind of goes back to point of the this thread, its not so much your philosophy, but the players you get to play. In a way I think switching to 3-4 defense was a mistake. We are not as good, not even close, to what our stats and rankings say. The defense failed against elite teams in this league, the rest of our easy schedule and the right games played at home gave the Pack a deceiving 11-5 record. I give more credit to the players motivation and pride to win, than anything TT or switching of philosophies did. Thus I believe sticking with our old defense woud have net the same if not better results.

Click to expand...

Tough to say. Aaron Kampman definitely should have been traded at the end of last season. The second Dom Capers got hired we should have traded Kampman. It was obvious that he didn't fit in that system right from the start.....now we get nothing for him.

Tough to say. Aaron Kampman definitely should have been traded at the end of last season. The second Dom Capers got hired we should have traded Kampman. It was obvious that he didn't fit in that system right from the start.....now we get nothing for him.

Click to expand...

As much as I like watching Mathews play, how much have the Packers gained by eliminating Kampman's DE position? What if with our old system TT had drafted two players like Raji and Mathews who improved our old scheme.

IMO Hawk for sure is a better LB in a 4-3 system. Kampman is Mathews and better in a 4-3 system.

In our old defense in 2008, does any body know what the highest yardage given up in one game during that year? I don't recall a game like the Steelers/Cardianals where we gave up over 500 yards.

I guess before we crown TT as a genius, he still has a lot to prove next year that this switch was worth it. There are 3 things working against the Pack next year:

1 - Everyone has a year of tape on how we run this defense and the Steelers and Cardinals showed how to play against it.

2 - Still have to find another serious pass rusher in our front 7, no matter how much we improve our secondary the better QBs in the league will tear us apart, even if we find a Woodson twin.

As much as I like watching Mathews play, how much have the Packers gained by eliminating Kampman's DE position? What if with our old system TT had drafted two players like Raji and Mathews who improved our old scheme.

IMO Hawk for sure is a better LB in a 4-3 system. Kampman is Mathews and better in a 4-3 system.

In our old defense in 2008, does any body know what the highest yardage given up in one game during that year? I don't recall a game like the Steelers/Cardianals where we gave up over 500 yards.

I guess before we crown TT as a genius, he still has a lot to prove next year that this switch was worth it. There are 3 things working against the Pack next year:

1 - Everyone has a year of tape on how we run this defense and the Steelers and Cardinals showed how to play against it.

2 - Still have to find another serious pass rusher in our front 7, no matter how much we improve our secondary the better QBs in the league will tear us apart, even if we find a Woodson twin.

3 - Schedule is not so forgiving next year, much harder.

Click to expand...

It was a big switch. Time will tell if it was the right one. I think our defense performed extremely well for the first year in a new system. Against the Cowboys we looked like we had the best defense in the league. The fact that we had significant injury issues in our defensive backfield was the reason we gave up so many yards/points against the Steelers and Cardinals IMO. Obviously we have spots to fill, but who doesn't? I was very pleased with our defensive performance for the first year in the 3-4. I think we will make strides this season.

As much as I like watching Mathews play, how much have the Packers gained by eliminating Kampman's DE position? What if with our old system TT had drafted two players like Raji and Mathews who improved our old scheme.

IMO Hawk for sure is a better LB in a 4-3 system. Kampman is Mathews and better in a 4-3 system.

In our old defense in 2008, does any body know what the highest yardage given up in one game during that year? I don't recall a game like the Steelers/Cardianals where we gave up over 500 yards.

I guess before we crown TT as a genius, he still has a lot to prove next year that this switch was worth it. There are 3 things working against the Pack next year:

1 - Everyone has a year of tape on how we run this defense and the Steelers and Cardinals showed how to play against it.

2 - Still have to find another serious pass rusher in our front 7, no matter how much we improve our secondary the better QBs in the league will tear us apart, even if we find a Woodson twin.

3 - Schedule is not so forgiving next year, much harder.

Click to expand...

I think you're way off.

How about Pickett? What about the running game? TALK ABOUT CHARLES WOODSON...

The D change was a big sucess, the evidence is all around.

And Kampman played what? 7 games before he got hurt?

The biggest flaw IMHO was not getting veteran CB when Harris and Lee went down.

We forget that Warner was getting rid of the ball in 3 step drops. He was not sitting in the pocket, like Favre against us.

One thing that does not matter to the average fan, but is key to the organization as a whole, is the financial side. This is where I believe TT shines the best, the return on investment, where the vikings have issues being profitable in their current situation. When they signed BF, they had to do a tricky payment schedule due to lack of funds, although I believe their investment in BF has paid off. Packers as an organization is on solid ground financially.

Click to expand...

The Vikings money issues have to do with having a lousy stadium and few sky boxes, no parking and a lousy contract with the stadium. Something that is out of the GM's hands. MN did nothing tricky to pay Brett as far as I know. If you know of something they did it's the first I heard of it. MN has for the last few years done very well on the side of paying players and not be caught in a bad situation when it comes to the salary cap.

How about Pickett? What about the running game? TALK ABOUT CHARLES WOODSON...

The D change was a big success, the evidence is all around.

And Kampman played what? 7 games before he got hurt?

The biggest flaw IMHO was not getting veteran CB when Harris and Lee went down.

We forget that Warner was getting rid of the ball in 3 step drops. He was not sitting in the pocket, like Favre against us.

Click to expand...

The 2008 Packer's defense could have made the same improvements in 2009 with 2 key additions.

If we stayed with the old scheme we would have 2 solid DEs, Hawk would be playing his ideal position and the defensive needs would be the secondary only. But instead this year we need another pass rusher as much as we need help in the secondary.

I am not debating on the success of the 3-4 in time, but what have we really gained in the short term. You don't think the 2009 draft class and free agents would not have helped the 2008 Packer's defense. We went to 2 super bowls with that defensive scheme.

With your thought process all teams must switch to the 3-4 defense, as the 4-3 has no merit. Thats way off.

The 2008 Packer's defense could have made the same improvements in 2009 with 2 key additions.

If we stayed with the old scheme we would have 2 solid DEs, Hawk would be playing his ideal position and the defensive needs would be the secondary only. But instead this year we need another pass rusher as much as we need help in the secondary.

I am not debating on the success of the 3-4 in time, but what have we really gained in the short term. You don't think the 2009 draft class and free agents would not have helped the 2008 Packer's defense. We went to 2 super bowls with that defensive scheme.

With your thought process all teams must switch to the 3-4 defense, as the 4-3 has no merit. Thats way off.

Click to expand...

With your thought process any hypothesis are valid in making an argument.

What I do know is that the D jumped from 20th to 2nd in 2009, with the change.

Those are facts.

It's also a fact that Hawk was not playing well in the 4-3. In fact, there were a lot of talk that the 3-4 would benefit him.

Also a fact that the D had 37 sacks in 09, compared to 27 in 08.

I also know that we jumped from 28th to 1st in rushing D. We simply didn't have quality DT for the 4-3. But Jolly and Pickett are ideal for the 3-4. Barnett is as good at the 3-4. So is Hawk, which is average. Chillar is better at the 3-4, miles better. Woodson played much better, so did Collins (but I believe Collins' was a natural progression).

The ones sacrified were Cullen Jenkins and Aaron Kampman.

One of them played really well when he had rotation, but when Raji wasn't ready and when Pickett was out, he didn't play well, and got tired down the stretch.

And the other didn't play enough games to be made any conclusions. Was he the same in the 3-4? Not even a shadow. But the change from DE to OLB takes time.

And the comparison with Kampman to Matthews? Kampman only made some noise in 2005, 3 years after he was drafted, with 6.5 sacks.

Matthews in his rookie year had 10.

And I'm one of the greatest Kampman defenders, I still believe he can play in the 3-4, and he has the highest motor in the NFL.

But Matthews will be MILES better than Kampman is or was. Not even close.

If we stayed in the 4-3, we wouldn't have got CM3, without a doubt. And who's to say we would've gotten anyone? We could've drafted busts. The way you puts things you're counted as certainties that we would've got at least 2 players for the 4-3, when it's not the case.

And when you start putting "teams" in the 3-4 4-3 argument, well, it looks like you're more bashing the 3-4 system than the move we made. Like you have some personal grudge against the 3-4.

What we have as facts is that the move was a right decision, based on everything I said. And saying that if we had stayed in the 4-3 we would've had more sucess is crazy talk, because it's ONLY based on conjectures.

With your thought process any hypothesis are valid in making an argument.

What I do know is that the D jumped from 20th to 2nd in 2009, with the change.

Those are facts.

It's also a fact that Hawk was not playing well in the 4-3. In fact, there were a lot of talk that the 3-4 would benefit him.

Also a fact that the D had 37 sacks in 09, compared to 27 in 08.

I also know that we jumped from 28th to 1st in rushing D. We simply didn't have quality DT for the 4-3. But Jolly and Pickett are ideal for the 3-4. Barnett is as good at the 3-4. So is Hawk, which is average. Chillar is better at the 3-4, miles better. Woodson played much better, so did Collins (but I believe Collins' was a natural progression).

The ones sacrified were Cullen Jenkins and Aaron Kampman.

One of them played really well when he had rotation, but when Raji wasn't ready and when Pickett was out, he didn't play well, and got tired down the stretch.

And the other didn't play enough games to be made any conclusions. Was he the same in the 3-4? Not even a shadow. But the change from DE to OLB takes time.

And the comparison with Kampman to Matthews? Kampman only made some noise in 2005, 3 years after he was drafted, with 6.5 sacks.

Matthews in his rookie year had 10.

And I'm one of the greatest Kampman defenders, I still believe he can play in the 3-4, and he has the highest motor in the NFL.

But Matthews will be MILES better than Kampman is or was. Not even close.

If we stayed in the 4-3, we wouldn't have got CM3, without a doubt. And who's to say we would've gotten anyone? We could've drafted busts. The way you puts things you're counted as certainties that we would've got at least 2 players for the 4-3, when it's not the case.

And when you start putting "teams" in the 3-4 4-3 argument, well, it looks like you're more bashing the 3-4 system than the move we made. Like you have some personal grudge against the 3-4.

What we have as facts is that the move was a right decision, based on everything I said. And saying that if we had stayed in the 4-3 we would've had more sucess is crazy talk, because it's ONLY based on conjectures.

Click to expand...

I think I am still not explaining myself clearly, my point is not so much which is better, but which one gets us there faster and that TT did not make all the right moves in the transition. His lack of having the "balls" to deal with the Kampman and Hawk situation before the 2009 season will cost this defense a year.

I am not sure why you even want to compare Mathews and Kampman, my point is that the two would already be book ends playing together going into the 2010 season if we kept the 4-3 system, given that TT would have drafted a DE = to Mathews. As it stands now we only have Mathews and are searching for his partner.

I am making the point that the move to the 3-4 defense is not absolute in the improvement we saw in the 2009 season, the old system in theory could have done the same thing and going into the 2010 season we would have had more pieces in place than we do now. I am thinking for the short term as I am really a fan of the 3-4 defense, just that this switch will cost us 2 years to build seeing the true fruits of the switch in year 3.

I am saying what if we kept the old defense, TT makes 2 big picks in the draft that had the same impact as Mathews and Raji, got a new def. coach, would we not have been farther along going into the 2010 season needing only secondary help?

See I am of the opinion that this defense is not as far along as everyone thinks, it will take another year to develop the players to stop the likes of the BF, Warners, and the big Ben types. All teams have injuries, but over a 1000 yards against in 2 games is a warning sign.

In theory if we kept the old defense we would only need secondary help going into 2010, the 2 big in theory pics by TT would have made the front 7 solid, looking to the draft for secondary help.

As it stands now our front 7 has problems, needing another pass rusher and we have question marks at one inside LB position. Then we also need help in the secondary.

I think I am still not explaining myself clearly, my point is not so much which is better, but which one gets us there faster and that TT did not make all the right moves in the transition. His lack of having the "balls" to deal with the Kampman and Hawk situation before the 2009 season will cost this defense a year.

Click to expand...

Hawk was perceived to improve in the 3-4.
Kampman is a fans favorite.

I don't think there was any other option, to at least try the players in the new scheme. And my money is still in Kampman coming back.

I am not sure why you even want to compare Mathews and Kampman, my point is that the two would already be book ends playing together going into the 2010 season if we kept the 4-3 system, given that TT would have drafted a DE = to Mathews. As it stands now we only have Mathews and are searching for his partner.

As much as I like watching Mathews play, how much have the Packers gained by eliminating Kampman's DE position? What if with our old system TT had drafted two players like Raji and Mathews who improved our old scheme.

Click to expand...

Plus, we know that Matthews is a terrific 3-4 OLB. We have no idea how he would fare in a 4-3, be it as a DE or an OLB. He didn't play with his hands down in GB, and if I'm not mistaken, he didn't in college.

I am making the point that the move to the 3-4 defense is not absolute in the improvement we saw in the 2009 season, the old system in theory could have done the same thing and going into the 2010 season we would have had more pieces in place than we do now. I am thinking for the short term as I am really a fan of the 3-4 defense, just that this switch will cost us 2 years to build seeing the true fruits of the switch in year 3.

Click to expand...

That's the thing. It's all in theory. I doubt that sticking with the 4-3 would've brought the same results. Thinking about Greg Williams and the Saints might lead to that, but it's not that easy of an assumption.

I agree that it wasn't just switching to the 3-4 that made all the difference, but nonetheless the switch is there and so is the result. Pickett was an OK DT, but is a monster NT. Jolly wasn't a good DT, but is a terrific run stopping DE.

I am saying what if we kept the old defense, TT makes 2 big picks in the draft that had the same impact as Mathews and Raji, got a new def. coach, would we not have been farther along going into the 2010 season needing only secondary help?

Click to expand...

Again hypothesis. If we're not in the 3-4, he doesn't look at Matthews, and doesn't move up. What if he selects Aaron Maybin? I don't know if he'll be a good player, but he didn't have much impact this year.

And Greg Williams turned it down. Who would've run it? Cel. Sanders again????????

See I am of the opinion that this defense is not as far along as everyone thinks, it will take another year to develop the players to stop the likes of the BF, Warners, and the big Ben types. All teams have injuries, but over a 1000 yards against in 2 games is a warning sign.

Click to expand...

A warning sign that your DC played those games the wrong way. Also a warning sign that when you lose your starting CB, and the backups, YOU FRIKIN GET A VETERAN FA, AND DO NOT ALLOW JARRETT BUSH AND JOSH BELL TO STEP ONTO THE FIELD!

In theory if we kept the old defense we would only need secondary help going into 2010, the 2 big in theory pics by TT would have made the front 7 solid, looking to the draft for secondary help.

Click to expand...

We still would need 2 OLB, and a DT, considering Raji plays the way he's supposed to play.

Hawk was even more exposed in the passing game in the 4-3, having to cover TEs and RBs.

Chillar was serviceable, but not much.

Jenkins and Kampman were great DEs, but no rotation...

Pickett and Jolly were only serviceable DTs...

As it stands now our front 7 has problems, needing another pass rusher and we have question marks at one inside LB position. Then we also need help in the secondary.

Click to expand...

Again, who's to say we wouldn't have the same problems? Actually, we had WORSE problems in 2008. We couldn't stop anyone running the ball and we couldn't get to any QB.

It's not a natural progression, the assumption that if we had stayed in the 4-3, we would've gotten 2 players for the front 7, that they would've the same impact Matthews and Raji had, or will have, and that we would be closer to being contenders now.

I think I am still not explaining myself clearly, my point is not so much which is better, but which one gets us there faster and that TT did not make all the right moves in the transition. His lack of having the "balls" to deal with the Kampman and Hawk situation before the 2009 season will cost this defense a year.

I am not sure why you even want to compare Mathews and Kampman, my point is that the two would already be book ends playing together going into the 2010 season if we kept the 4-3 system, given that TT would have drafted a DE = to Mathews. As it stands now we only have Mathews and are searching for his partner.

I am making the point that the move to the 3-4 defense is not absolute in the improvement we saw in the 2009 season, the old system in theory could have done the same thing and going into the 2010 season we would have had more pieces in place than we do now. I am thinking for the short term as I am really a fan of the 3-4 defense, just that this switch will cost us 2 years to build seeing the true fruits of the switch in year 3.

I am saying what if we kept the old defense, TT makes 2 big picks in the draft that had the same impact as Mathews and Raji, got a new def. coach, would we not have been farther along going into the 2010 season needing only secondary help?

See I am of the opinion that this defense is not as far along as everyone thinks, it will take another year to develop the players to stop the likes of the BF, Warners, and the big Ben types. All teams have injuries, but over a 1000 yards against in 2 games is a warning sign.

In theory if we kept the old defense we would only need secondary help going into 2010, the 2 big in theory pics by TT would have made the front 7 solid, looking to the draft for secondary help.

As it stands now our front 7 has problems, needing another pass rusher and we have question marks at one inside LB position. Then we also need help in the secondary.

Click to expand...

I have to admit you're right on the money about not dealing Hawk and Kampman before the season started. We would've gotten great value for them. But how would we have known that they wouldn't fit this defense before even giving them a full season's worth of time to prove that? It's like firing somebody before even letting them start their first day at work.

So you're suggesting that TT would've drafted a DE like matthews in the '09 draft. But how do you know this for sure? Like PackersRS said, this is all about conjecture. Maybe TT would've gotten Crabtree since he was the best player available, would you have been happy then? What PackersRS is trying to say is that with the switch to the 3-4 might have stimulated TT to start drafting for need instead of best player available. In my eyes that's a lesson I wanted TT to learn waaaayyyy back and I'm glad the 3-4 switch woke him up.

I was also skeptic of the 3-4 during the season, looking back at the '08 defense one can see that injuries severely damaged the team because we had no depth whatsoever. However maybe if we took that 9th pick and drafted a solid LOLB, and that 23rd pick for Rey Mauluga or a safety we probably would've filled the holes from our old 4-3 defense. However we'll never know whether the problems would've been fixed or not. The team made the switch to the 3-4 and we can't convince them to go back, let's move on.

I have to admit you're right on the money about not dealing Hawk and Kampman before the season started. We would've gotten great value for them. But how would we have known that they wouldn't fit this defense before even giving them a full season's worth of time to prove that? It's like firing somebody before even letting them start their first day at work.

So you're suggesting that TT would've drafted a DE like matthews in the '09 draft. But how do you know this for sure? Like PackersRS said, this is all about conjecture. Maybe TT would've gotten Crabtree since he was the best player available, would you have been happy then? What PackersRS is trying to say is that with the switch to the 3-4 might have stimulated TT to start drafting for need instead of best player available. In my eyes that's a lesson I wanted TT to learn waaaayyyy back and I'm glad the 3-4 switch woke him up.

I was also skeptic of the 3-4 during the season, looking back at the '08 defense one can see that injuries severely damaged the team because we had no depth whatsoever. However maybe if we took that 9th pick and drafted a solid LOLB, and that 23rd pick for Rey Mauluga or a safety we probably would've filled the holes from our old 4-3 defense. However we'll never know whether the problems would've been fixed or not. The team made the switch to the 3-4 and we can't convince them to go back, let's move on.

Click to expand...

I am a fan of the 3-4 defense, I just believe we are still a year away from being what everyone thinks we are statically, that top defense.

I don't know anything for sure, but if we did and it is not so out of the question because TT did draft well for the 3-4 defense, Had he done it for the 4-3, we would have been much further along going into 2010.

I am just pointing out there is a short term cost to this switch, made worse by wrong decisions by TT in personnel.

The switch cost us more needs in this up and coming draft/free agency than we would have needed if we stayed with old system. Now in the long term we will sing the praises of this new defense, but there is a short term cost.

IMO we have too many holes on this team for one draft to address, that being the O-line, secondary (safety and corner), and pass rusher in the front 7 to make a solid run for the super bowl. Even if TT has a repeat draft, he can fill 2 of the 3 holes only.

If he had dealt with Kampman properly, his trade value or staying with the old system would have eliminated one of the 3 needs. We would have only 2 holes to fill this up and coming draft which is more realistic. Thats what I am saying the Packers gave up making this switch, the 2010 season will more than likely be a building year. Now in 2011 and after look out, the Packers will be on a mission.

My opinion of TT is that he is night and day, no grey area. He can see talent in Mathews and make that call on moving up to get him, but he can't make the same judgment call with Kampman, costing the Packers a year and his true star value in 2008. As good as the Mathews pick is and will be, it was not like we got a great player in addition to Kampman, we are losing Kampman and still in need of a pass rusher. Its not all clear profit, we gave up a star player for this.

I would still make an argument that Cullen Jenkins and Hawk are still not playing their ideal positions, they are performing in the 3-4 system, but not their ideal positions.

It is so blatantly obvious that the secret lies somewhere in the middle - a general manager MUST subsidize his drafts with free agent acquisitions. This is where Minnesota has stepped up and over Green Bay.

A team cannot live on drafting alone (TT is living proof of that) and a team cannot gamble on pricey FA's every year. A solid mixture is the ticket. For example, Minnesota is smart enough to realize that NFL-ready QB's are non-existent in the draft, for all intents and purposes. They also realize TJack does not possess enough big-play moxy and Sage-en-copter is, well, Sage. So, they pluck up the greatest QB in the history of NFL football and all he does is lead them to 12 wins and all but the Super Bowl victory. What did Thompson do on the FA front the past year or two that has propelled Green Bay to the next level? Anybody? Anybody???

Don't forget that scrub safety from Pitt that he eventually cut, who was actually not terrible, and Duke friggin' Preston.

I think TT did well with Woodson and Pickett, but he needs to dig a little deeper and find these types for the positions Green Bay currently has answers for, but incorrect answers. Nick Collins took years to develop and I'm not sold on him. Same with Colledge. Hawk is not an answer for what he is being paid. Chillar was a good addition and was inexpensive.

I don't know, folks. I look at Green Bay overall and I see a team's growth being almost intentionally stunted. Every year a few questions at key positions and every year half-correct answers for them.

Don't forget that scrub safety from Pitt that he eventually cut, who was actually not terrible, and Duke friggin' Preston.

I think TT did well with Woodson and Pickett, but he needs to dig a little deeper and find these types for the positions Green Bay currently has answers for, but incorrect answers. Nick Collins took years to develop and I'm not sold on him. Same with Colledge. Hawk is not an answer for what he is being paid. Chillar was a good addition and was inexpensive.

I don't know, folks. I look at Green Bay overall and I see a team's growth being almost intentionally stunted. Every year a few questions at key positions and every year half-correct answers for them.

It is so blatantly obvious that the secret lies somewhere in the middle - a general manager MUST subsidize his drafts with free agent acquisitions. This is where Minnesota has stepped up and over Green Bay.

A team cannot live on drafting alone (TT is living proof of that) and a team cannot gamble on pricey FA's every year. A solid mixture is the ticket. For example, Minnesota is smart enough to realize that NFL-ready QB's are non-existent in the draft, for all intents and purposes. They also realize TJack does not possess enough big-play moxy and Sage-en-copter is, well, Sage. So, they pluck up the greatest QB in the history of NFL football and all he does is lead them to 12 wins and all but the Super Bowl victory. What did Thompson do on the FA front the past year or two that has propelled Green Bay to the next level? Anybody? Anybody???

Click to expand...

You cannot be more wrong. I agree that the queens are more advent in terms of FA while GB is more draft-pick wise. However looking back at the current records of both head coaches it seems that both teams are neck and neck. Childress has a 36-28 career record while mccarthy is 38-26, both coaches also got to the wildcard and lost one season and made the nfc championship as well. Before you start giving the queens the upper hand why don't you list some facts first.

Wow, the TT hate from Hauschild's post is really stinking up the place. You do know that if we do sign a few key FA's, that would limit TT to re-signing guys even more, right? Which unrestricted FA's do you think are the missing pieces Hausch?

You cannot be more wrong. I agree that the queens are more advent in terms of FA while GB is more draft-pick wise. However looking back at the current records of both head coaches it seems that both teams are neck and neck. Childress has a 36-28 career record while mccarthy is 38-26, both coaches also got to the wildcard and lost one season and made the nfc championship as well. Before you start giving the queens the upper hand why don't you list some facts first.

Click to expand...

I have made this exact point....giving those exact same numbers and facts to both Haus and Raptorman. They have never responded with a good argument to counter these facts and numbers.

One of the reasons Green Bay Packers general manager Ron Wolf left the game was his frustration with many teams for their inability to make trades. Wolf was never afraid to make a deal. He was always looking for different ways to improve his team and would never take the 76ers’ approach of standing pat with an inept team. Wolf would not just change for the sake of change. He knew what he had, knew what he was trading and was confident in his evaluations. He wasn’t scared to trade a pick because he knew he had to give up something to improve his team. He worked every day to improve his team, something many people in the NFL don’t do.

You cannot be more wrong. I agree that the queens are more advent in terms of FA while GB is more draft-pick wise. However looking back at the current records of both head coaches it seems that both teams are neck and neck. Childress has a 36-28 career record while mccarthy is 38-26, both coaches also got to the wildcard and lost one season and made the nfc championship as well. Before you start giving the queens the upper hand why don't you list some facts first.